IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGANUI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGANUI ROHE	
CRI-2020-083-1530 CRI-2022-483-10
CRI-2022-083-400 [2023] NZHC 1268	

THE KING	

v	

DAVID ALLEN FALAMOE	

Hearing:	26 May 2023	
Appearances:	M M Wilkinson-Smith for the Crown
J C Gwilliam and J W Griffiths for Mr Falamoe	
Judgment:	26 May 2023	

SENTENCING OF COOKE J

[1]	Mr Falamoe you are now to be sentenced on:

(a)	two charges of sexual violation by rape;1

(b)	one charge of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection;2

(c)	two charges of attempted sexual violation;3

(d)	two charges of indecent act on a child under 12 years old;4

1	Crimes Act 1961, s 128(1)(a) and s 128B – maximum 20 years’ imprisonment.
2	Section 128(1)(b) and s 128B – maximum 20 years’ imprisonment.
3	Section 129(1) – maximum 10 years’ imprisonment.
4	Section 132(3) – maximum 10 years’ imprisonment.

R v FALAMOE [2023] NZHC 1268 [26 May 2023]

(e)	one charge of compelling an indecent act with an animal;5

(f)	one charge of assault with intent to injure;6

(g)	two charges of male assaults female;7 and

(h)	one charge of indecent assault.8

[2]	You were found guilty of these charges following two separate trials with the exception of the last charge of indecent assault to which you entered a guilty plea following the verdict at the second trial.

[3]	As you know the Crown seeks a sentence of preventive detention. To explain the sentence that I intend to impose upon you I will first set out the facts of your offending. I will then address the sentence of imprisonment that would be appropriate for that offending — that involves assessing the starting point for the offending overall by comparison with similar cases, and then assessing whether there should be any uplifts or discounts to that starting point because of circumstances personal to you. After I have done that, and reached a conclusion on the finite term of imprisonment that ought to be imposed in your case, I will then go on to assess whether it is necessary to impose the sentence of preventive detention and any minimum period of imprisonment.

The facts of the offending

[4]	As indicated I will start with the facts of your offending.

[5]	I will refer to the victims by initials rather than their names to assist in the process of protecting their identities. Your offending involves five separate victims: AH, a 17–18 year old girl; TM, a woman in her 40s; two children aged 6 and 9 years; and finally JM the person you indecently assaulted.

5	Section 142A – maximum 14 years’ imprisonment.
6	Section 193 – maximum 3 years’ imprisonment.
7	Section 194(b) – maximum 2 years’ imprisonment.
8	Section 135 – maximum 7 years’ imprisonment.

[6]	In relation to AH you have been found guilty of one charge of sexual violation by rape, one charge of assault with intent to injure, and one charge of male assaults female. The offending took place between November 2014 and October 2016. You formed a relationship with Ms H when you were living together, and your offending took place in that context.

[7]	Ms H was a vulnerable person when she first moved into your house as a flatmate. She had had a troubled life, had been in state care, and was moving in with you when moving out of state care. So she was in a vulnerable state when she moved in. She was young, between 17 and 18 years of age when the offences occurred.

[8]	You were initially friendly with her, and then your friendship developed into a sexual relationship at your instigation. The initial sexual contact between the two of you was consensual, but she was a person who was young and extremely vulnerable and you took advantage of this. It then developed into a coercive relationship where you became sexually and physically abusive. This involved you threatening to be violent with her, or to do violence to yourself if she did not accept your sexual advances.

[9]	The sexual violation by rape as a representative offence arises from two situations where Ms H gave evidence that you raped her in these circumstances. The two occasions were situations where she gave up resisting your advances given the psychological pressure and threats which you had exposed her to. When you initiated sexual conduct she froze and allowed the activity to occur whilst she was fearful of what you would do to her, or that you would harm yourself as you had threatened to do. Although neither occasion involved other violence, neither were occasions where Ms H consented or where you could reasonably believe she was consenting. Both were serious situations where you took advantage of a vulnerable young person.

[10]	The two assaults involve less serious offending, but it is still significant given her age and vulnerability and the general nature of your offending. The assault with intent to injure involves a single punch to her stomach at a time when she says that she was pregnant. Ms H says that she miscarried as a result, although I do not sentence you on that basis, rather on the basis that you assaulted her in the way that she

described. The male assaults female is when you gave Ms H a black eye and a fat lip in response to disciplinary action that she had taken in relation to your son.

[11]	Your next victim is TM with whom you had a longer relationship commencing in around 2018.

[12]	Again your relationship with her began in a consensual way. She was in her 40s, and initially consented to forming a sexual relationship with you. But she also had vulnerabilities and insecurities and as your relationship developed it became not only manipulative, but abusive and coercive both physically and psychologically.  Ms M suffered from mental health issues and also alcohol abuse issues. You became more abusive, and particularly more physically abusive when you drank alcohol, especially when you became drunk. As the relationship developed it became even more abusive and ultimately involved highly degrading behaviour.

[13]	The first offence of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection involves an occasion when you forced her head down onto your penis. She initially began performing oral sex on you as you effectively demanded until she noticed that you were apparently filming her on your cellphone and when she objected and you ultimately stopped. She did not consent to this activity, and neither could you reasonably believe that she was. You simply forced her to do it until you let her go. I accept that you did desist when she opposed going any further. But you had still treated her as someone you could obtain whatever you wanted from her sexually whenever you wanted it.

[14]	The next offence is attempted sexual violation by rape which occurred at her house. You were very drunk and tried to force her legs open to have sex with her when you were on a bed. You were behaving in a very rough manner. You removed your clothing, pushed her on the bed, got on top of her and tried to force her legs open. But she had her underwear on and you were too drunk to overwhelm her.

[15]	The further offence of attempted sexual violation was when you attempted to have anal sex with her when she was leaning over a table rolling a cigarette. You pulled down her shorts and underwear from behind and pushed your penis against her

anus. Again you were grossly intoxicated. She said “no” and did not cooperate and you did not persist.

[16]	The charge of rape occurred immediately thereafter. You both moved across the room to the couch where you then forced yourself upon her and had sexual intercourse. Although it does not form an element of the charge it is apparent from the evidence given by Ms M and accepted by the jury, including the evidence that you urinated inside her as part of this offending. This is a reflection of the nature of your offending against Ms M which involved increasingly degrading behaviour.

[17]	The charge of male assaults female involved you slapping Ms M across the face when you were very angry about your car being stolen.

[18]	The charge of compelling an indecent act with an animal involves a situation of sexual activity between you and Ms M when Ms M was lying down naked. You introduced your dog into this activity and sought to get the dog to lick her vagina. You not only pushed the dog forward to do that but said to her that she should consent. Ms M was terrified. She resisted and the dog got no further than licking her ankle, but she was disgusted by what you had done, and it was this conduct that eventually led her to the realisation that it was a highly abusive relationship which needed to be ended.

[19]	The two charges involving the children were addressed at your first trial. They again involved situations when you were intoxicated.

[20]	TG was a nine year old a niece of Ms M. Ms M’s daughter and partner were staying with Ms M. The offending occurred at Ms M’s house the morning following some of the offending you engaged in against Ms M I have described, and involved you getting into bed with TG in the bedroom in which she was sleeping. Fortunately you were stopped before you did anything further, and before the child woke up. The previous evening you had made the comment that TG “needed a good fingering”.

[21]	IW was a six year old. You had befriended her parents and where cuddling IW and her sister on a couch at their house. Whilst you were doing that with the blanket over you you touched IW’s vagina with the blanket hiding what you were doing.

[22]	The offending involving IW is more serious than TG as it involved actual contact with her genitalia, and she was a young child. Fortunately she appears not to have a memory of the event, and in TG’s case she never woke up to know what you were doing. But any offending against children of this age must be regarded as serious.

[23]	Your final victim is JM and involves the charge of indecent assault. You and JM started living at the same house. JM agreed to give you a tattoo. When JM started tattooing your shoulder you unzipped JM’s trousers moving your fingers over JM’s underwear and touching JM near the top of JM’s genitalia. JM was shocked and asked you what you were doing and you commented you thought they should “have some fun”. You then stopped and left the room.

[24]	There is a common theme of all this offending and the victims of your offending. Each had their vulnerabilities in their own way. It is apparent that you are an intelligent man. You are a manipulative person. Your modus operandi involves getting close to a person, and then seeking to engage in sexual conduct with them, initially by psychological pressure but then as your relationship develops by using whatever means available, including both psychological and physical violence, and the threats of violence. The manipulative behaviour includes threatening to do self- harm as part of the pressure on your victims. When you are drunk you become increasingly physically violent when undertaking these activities. The behaviour involves increasing degrading behaviour as the relationship progresses. In short you are a sexual predator that uses whatever means available to get whatever you want sexually.

[25]	A further striking feature of your offending is that all the reports now made available to me indicate that you continue to deny it and claim to be a victim of false allegations. Those reports indicate that you have had your own troubled life, and it may be that your failure to fully accept, or to come clean about what you have done to these many victims is a reflection of that. But your victims have had the courage of

coming forward, and we have heard the victim impact statements read today. I particularly want to acknowledge them, and pay tribute for their courage. That is particularly so in relation, Ms M. I know this has all been very hard for her for all sorts of reasons. The fact that she had the courage to come forward, and expose what Mr Falamoe had done to her has led to the more extensive offending being identified. She can at least take comfort from the fact that she has seen justice being served because of the steps she took.

Starting point for term of imprisonment

[26]	The next step in the sentencing exercise is to assess the starting point for the period of imprisonment that would be imposed. When doing so I take into account the sentencing principles under the Sentencing Act 2002, and I consider the circumstances of your offending compared with other similar cases, and sentencing principles that have been established by the courts. At this stage I do not assess factors personal to you.

[27]	There is a guideline judgment for sexual offending of this kind in the Court of Appeal’s decision in R v AM. It sets out particular bands for sexual violation offending.9 A complication arises in your present case because your offending involves multiple victims. As the Court of Appeal said in Wihongi v R that can present challenges.10 The approach that I believe is appropriate in your case is to use the offending against Ms M as the lead offending applying the principles of R v AM, and then applying an uplift to the starting point for that offending by reference to the other offending against other victims. That would include an uplift for the offending against Ms H, and consideration of a further uplift for the other offending, particularly the offending against the children.

[28]	In terms of the starting point and the bands set out in R v AM the following aggravating factors are relevant for your offending against Ms M:

9	R v AM [2010] NZCA 114, (2010) 24 CRNZ 540.
10	Wihongi v R [2021] NZCA 138 at [23].

(a)	First the offending against Ms M  involved  violence,  including  in Ms M’s home, although I accept that there was less violence in this case compared with other cases involving this offending. Nevertheless there was significant violence that is a relevant aggravating factor.

(b)	Secondly, Ms M was a vulnerable person. She was older than your other victims but she had mental health struggles, addiction issues, and most significantly was vulnerable to your manipulative behaviours and coercion.

(c)	A further significant aggravating factor is the scale of the offending. It occurred for a significant period of time over the course of what can be described to be an abusive relationship. I do not sentence you for being in an abusive relationship. I sentence you for the offences you have committed. But the seriousness of the offending is affected by the nature of the relationship you built up with Ms M over time, and the progression of the offending.

(d)	I also accept that there was significant harm to Ms M, particularly because of the psychological impact upon her. I have taken into account how she has described the impact on her, including in her victim impact statement.

[29]	As a result of those factors the Crown submits that your case falls within band 3 of R v AM, which involves a starting point of 12–18 years. Your counsel submits that it fits within band 1 or the lower end of band 2. Band 1 is 6–8 years’ imprisonment and band 2 is 7–13 years’ imprisonment.

[30]	Overall the Crown argues that a starting point for all your offending should be 15 years imprisonment. Your counsel says it should be 12 years.

[31]	I consider that the offending against Ms M alone involves offending within band 2 of R v AM. The Court of Appeal described this as offending covering a

vulnerable victim involving two or three of the factors increasing culpability to a moderate degree including premeditation and moderate violence.

[32]	In one of the cases that has been relied upon by counsel, a case called Singh, the Court of Appeal saw no error in a starting point of 12 years eight months’ imprisonment for a series of similar offences.11 In your case I see an appropriate starting point to be 11 years’ imprisonment for all the offending against Ms M. The starting point would have been higher, and potentially within band 3, were it not for the fact that in some of the instances of the offending you desisted from continuing with the offending after Ms M resisted. But nevertheless the ongoing nature of your offending against her, the psychological abuse, and the fact that you did persist with the offending particularly when you were heavily intoxicated still makes it serious.

[33]	An uplift is then required for your separate offending against Ms H. There are similar aggravating factors for offending against her, although there was less physical violence, and the offending was less prolonged. However the vulnerability of Ms H is a particularly important factor in the present case as you took advantage of her youth, and the fact she was coming out of a troubled life in state care. The Crown submits that a starting point for the offending against her would be 10 years’ imprisonment. Your counsel says that it would have been at the very bottom of R v AM, so approximately seven years’ imprisonment. In my view, looked at separately, it would have involved a starting point of eight years’ imprisonment.

[34]	For your sentence I need to assess what the uplift of the starting point assessed for the offending against Ms M should be for this further significant offending. I need to bear in mind the totality principle and the requirement to stand back and assess the offending overall.12 In my view the starting point should be uplifted by one and a half years’ imprisonment in light of this further offending so that the starting point moves to 12 and a half years’ imprisonment.

[35]	I then need to consider uplifts for the remaining offending. I do not give a separate uplift for the offending against JM. I accept that for offending of this kind it

11	Singh v R [2022] NZCA 140.
12	Polaapau v R [2020] NZCA 227 at [44].

is comparatively minor although it is apparent it has had significant impact on JM. I also accept that the offending against the two children, IW and TG is of lower seriousness than other offending against children of this type. It is apparent that TG was not even aware of your offending as she remained asleep. It is also apparent that IW does not recall, or at least has blocked out, what you did to her. But that does not mean that the offending is not serious, particularly in relation to IW which involved touching of her genitalia. Offending of this kind is serious by its very nature. It reflects your belief that you could take whatever sexual pleasure you wanted from any females to which you have had access. A further uplift is required to mark out this particular type of offending. The starting point is uplifted by a further six months for this reason.

[36]	That results in an overall starting point of 13 years’ imprisonment.

Personal aggravating and mitigating circumstances

[37]	The next step is to consider whether there needs to be any uplift, or decrease to the starting point because of personal aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

[38]	The Crown seeks an uplift for your prior conviction history given that you have 65 prior convictions including 29 for violent offending. They seek a six month uplift on that basis. Your counsel says there should be no uplift for previous offending.

[39]	I do not consider that a further uplift is appropriate primarily because your prior offending did not involve sexual offending of the kind for which you have now been convicted. I see your sexual offending as involving a particular type of criminal conduct. The previous violence offending is relevant but not in a way that suggests there should be a further uplift over and above the starting point I have reached for your sexual offending overall, including the violence that formed part of it.

[40]	A notable feature of your offending disclosed by the reports that have been made available to me is the complete lack of any acceptance by you that you have committed the offences, and accordingly the lack of any remorse. That can be seen as an aggravating factor. Your counsel submits that this is reflective of your traumatic upbringing and your own mental health and potential addiction issues, including the

borderline personality disorder that is described in the reports made available to me. In a sense I see these factors as cancelling one another out. The failure to accept that you have caused very significant harm from your offending may be a reflection of your own deep seated problems that you need to address. This factor does not warrant any further uplift, or discount.

[41]	I have also been provided with a cultural report under s 27 of the Sentencing Act from Shelley Turner. There can be discounts arising from what is broadly described as cultural and social deprivation where that has a causal connection with the offending.13 The report describes your Tongan heritage on your father’s side, and Māori and Italian heritage on your mother’s side. You no longer have a connection with any of these cultures. The report also describes a troubled background involving family dysfunction and trauma, some reported childhood sexual abuse, state care, substance abuse and mental health issues. Whilst these factors all individually contribute to why you have ended up where you are today, I am not satisfied that there is cultural deprivation of a kind recognised by the authorities that would warrant a separate discount in the present case, and in particular I am not satisfied there is a causal connection between any cultural deprivation and the offending.

[42]	Although you might be eligible for a minor discount for your guilty plea in relation to the offending against JM, given that I have not increased your sentence as a consequence of that offending any discount is largely immaterial, and can be seen to have been addressed within the application of the totality principle.

[43]	This means that the finite period of imprisonment to which you would be subject to is 13 years’ imprisonment.

Preventive detention

[44]	The next step in the sentencing exercise is to consider whether the sentence of preventive detention should be imposed as sought by the Crown.

13	Berkland v R [2022] NZC 143.

[45]	A sentence of preventive detention is designed for the protection of the community, rather than to punish you. In the words of s 87(1) of the Act it is to protect the community from those proposing a significant and ongoing risk to the safety of its members. The following factors must be considered when you meet the qualifying conditions for such sentencing, as you do, when the Court is assessing whether you are likely to commit another qualifying sexual offence:

(a)	any pattern of serious offending disclosed by your history;

(b)	the seriousness of the harm to the community caused;

(c)	information indicating a tendency to commit such serious offences in the future;

(d)	the absence or failure of efforts by you to address the cause or causes of the offending; and

(e)	the principle that a lengthy determinate sentence is preferable if this provides adequate protection for society.

[46]	In terms of the first factor, although you have not committed sexual offences as part of your history, I accept that the nature of your offending against multiple victims here discloses a pattern of serious offending. It is also offending of a similar kind as you identified vulnerabilities in your particular victims and sought to exploit them to achieve sexual gratification.

[47]	In terms of the second factor I accept that there has been significant and serious harm to the community caused by your conduct. That is most fully demonstrated by the harm to Ms M but also the impact on the other victims. It is also reflected in the attempt to obtain sexual gratification from two young children.

[48]	In terms of the third and fourth factors, as is required I have been provided with reports of two specialists as to the risks that you pose, the first from  a psychiatrist  Dr Lorraine Davison, and the second from a clinical psychologist Dr Bronwyn Castell.

[49]	As both reports record attempts were made by both of these specialists to engage with you about your offending. But you maintained during your interviews with them that you were innocent of this offending, and in fact you were the victim of false allegations against you. Engaging in assessment of your risk of reoffending becomes more difficult in those circumstances. As s 87 itself points out a failure to address the cause or causes of the offending is specifically identified as a risk factor when it comes to assessing the risk to the community of you reoffending. Having said that I am aware of the evidence that those who deny their offending do not appear to be more likely to reoffend than those who admit it.

[50]	Both experts have applied risk assessment models. These are statistical models that predict reoffending risk based on comparing your circumstances based on your offending and other information about you compared with other offenders, and information about those offenders. The application of those models suggest that you sit in a category of persons that are at an above average risk of sexual reoffending. Dr Davison’s opinion is that if you were released into the community today there would be a high likelihood that you would go on to commit a further qualifying offence probably within a relatively short period of time. But the assessment of risk must relate to the risk of reoffending at the end of the finite sentence.14 Dr Davison goes on to say that if you engaged in treatment programmes within prison there are a number of potential treatment targets that could potentially lower your risk to an acceptable degree, but it is not possible to predict at this stage whether or not that will occur.

[51]	Similarly Dr Castell is of the view that you are at the above average risk of committing a qualifying sexual offence, and high risk of committing further violence offending. She says that reoffending would most likely occur in an adult intimate partner relationship. She also notes that you have not had the advantage of being offered treatment intensive enough to address the complex personality and offence related needs that she has identified. She indicated that in her interactions with you you expressed some motivation to attend intensive treatment and that, in your own words that you might be “pushed to face things” that you have been “avoiding”. She

14	Cooper v R [2020] NZCA 683 at [24].

indicates that you have some potential for rehabilitation if you have access to appropriate intensive treatment and if you show a willingness to engage.

[52]	The conclusion that I draw from this material, and from your circumstances overall, is that I am unable to conclude that you are likely to commit further qualifying sexual offence at the end of your sentence as required by s 87 for the imposition of a sentence of preventive detention. That is because it ultimately depends on whether you are prepared to face up to your issues and to seek help. If you do face up to your issues, and seek that assistance it may well be that the clearly present risk of reoffending that you currently pose can be addressed.

[53]	One of the principles to be applied is that a lengthy determinate sentence is preferable to preventive detention if this provides adequate protection. The Court should also address, when deciding whether to impose a sentence of preventive detention, whether the alternative approach of imposing an Extended Supervision Order at the end of the sentence would address the risk that is identified.15 That can be particularly important in more borderline cases.16 An Extended Supervision Order is an order that is made at the end of your sentence that would impose limitations on you on your release, including if necessary a requirement that you be electronically monitored in the community.

[54]	That is the reality that you face. If you continue to deny your offending, and fail to address the underlying issues two things may well occur. First it is unlikely that the Parole Board will release you earlier than the full term of your sentence. If you work on your issues with the assistance that would be made available then it may not be necessary for you to serve your full sentence. That would then be a matter for the Parole Board. Secondly, even if you do serve the full 13 year term of imprisonment you can be subject to an Extended Supervision Order, for a period of at least 10 years if not more, if the risks remain. So the reality is that your future is in your hands. If you do nothing then these are the realities that will face you. It is really striking that even some of your victims have had the insight to see this.

15	Tranter v R [2017] NZCA 45.
16	Cooper v R [2020] NZCA 683.

[55]	For the purpose of protecting the community I am not satisfied at this stage that I can say that at the end of the 13 years the risk that is currently present will still exist. It is possible that you will be able to address the position. Moreover the specialists indicate that the level of your reoffending risk is only above average, and it is not in the higher categories. For these reasons I decline to impose the sentence of preventive detention.

Minimum period of imprisonment

[56]	Having found that a sentence of 13 years is appropriate, and that a sentence of preventive detention is not required, I finally turn to the question of whether a minimum period of imprisonment should be imposed. Section 86 of the Sentencing Act permits the Court to impose a minimum period of imprisonment that is longer than the one third that must be served under the Parole Act 2002 before parole is considered. The Court can do that if satisfied that the period normally served would be insufficient for holding you accountable for the harm done to the victims or the community, denouncing your conduct, deterring you and other persons or protecting the community.

[57]	Here the Crown says that an MPI of 50 per cent of the finite sentence is warranted. Your counsel said that there is no minimum term required.

[58]	In my view minimum periods of imprisonment should only be imposed in particular cases. They should not be arbitrarily or routinely imposed. They should be reserved for cases where there is a clear need to depart from the outcome arrived at by the conventional sentencing methodologies. The principles of holding an offender to account, denouncing their conduct, deterrence and protection would normally have been properly taken into account when imposing the sentence. But I recognise that minimum terms of imprisonment have been endorsed in decisions of the Court of Appeal, including, for example, in the decision in the Singh case I referred to earlier, albeit that the Court of Appeal reduced the minimum term on appeal.17

17	Singh v R, above n 11.

[59]	I consider the issue to be finely balanced in your present case. But ultimately I accept that there is a need for a minimum term of imprisonment here to reflect the need to hold you accountable for the harm done to Ms M in particular and to denounce your conduct. The particular degrading way in which you treated Ms M, which was reflected in your conduct with your other victims, means the minimum term should be higher than set by the statute. Bearing in mind the offending to which that determination is applied, and my conclusion that the starting point for the offending against Ms M would have been 11 years’ imprisonment but the ultimate sentence is 13 years’ imprisonment, I set a minimum period of imprisonment of five years six months’ imprisonment.

[60]	I note that the imposition of such a minimum term should not be taken in any way to adversely affect the availability of programmes to assist you in rehabilitation. And I ask that the two reports I have mentioned during this sentencing be referred to the authorities so that the appropriate steps can be taken in that respect.

[61]	For the purposes of the formal record of the offending, whilst the sentence that I will impose is a term of 13 years’ imprisonment, it is appropriate for particular terms of imprisonment to be entered against your record particular offences. For that purpose:

(a)	On the charge of sexual violation by rape of Ms M you are sentenced to 13 years’ imprisonment, and made subject to a minimum period of imprisonment of five years six months.

(b)	On the charge of sexual violation by rape of Ms H you are sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment to be served concurrently.

(c)	On the two charges of attempted sexual violation of Ms M you are sentenced to six years’ imprisonment on each charge to be served concurrently.

(d)	On the one charge of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection involving Ms M you are sentenced to five years’ imprisonment to be served concurrently.

(e)	On the charge of compelling an indecent act with an animal involving Ms M you are sentenced to one years’ imprisonment to be served concurrently.

(f)	On the charge of indecent act on a child under 12 years old involving IW you are sentenced to one years’ imprisonment to be served concurrently.

(g)	On the charge of indecent act on a child under 12 years old involving TG you are sentenced to six months’ imprisonment to be served concurrently.

(h)	With respect to the three remaining charges of assault with intent to injure, male assaults female, and indecent act you are sentenced to three months’ imprisonment on each charge, to be served concurrently.

[62]	Mr Falamoe would you please stand.

[63]	On the charges of sexual violation by rape, sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection, attempted sexual violation, indecent act on a child under 12 years old, compelling an indecent act with an animal, assault with intent to injure, male assaults female and doing an indecent act you are sentenced to 13 years’ imprisonment, and made subject to a minimum term of imprisonment of five years six months’ imprisonment.

Cooke J